What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Lucy Pocock, Tanuka Palit, Adam McDermott, Sam Creavin, Emma Gilbert, Samuel Wd Merriel, Steven Moore, Sarah Purdy, Stephen Barclay, Lucy E Selman
{"title":"What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.","authors":"Lucy Pocock, Tanuka Palit, Adam McDermott, Sam Creavin, Emma Gilbert, Samuel Wd Merriel, Steven Moore, Sarah Purdy, Stephen Barclay, Lucy E Selman","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2023.0341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care helps to ensure that patients with life-limiting illness receive appropriate coordinated care in line with their preferences. However, little is known about this information-sharing process.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine how poor prognosis is communicated from secondary care to primary care.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>This was an international systematic review and narrative synthesis of studies published in English.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Four electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 17 May 2021, supplemented by hand-searching of key journals. One-quarter of titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second reviewer. Two reviewers undertook data extraction and quality appraisal, independently using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Reporting follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Searches identified 23 853 unique studies of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Few studies had a focus on the interprofessional communication of poor prognosis. Information about prognosis was not commonly communicated from secondary to primary care and was more likely to occur if death was imminent. Lack of identification of poor prognosis by secondary care teams was a barrier. Facilitators included shared electronic records and direct clinician-clinician contact. GPs welcomed this information from secondary care and felt it was vital for continuity of care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care is highly valued it is rare and associated with cultural and systemic challenges. Further research is necessary to understand the information needs of GPs and to explore the challenges facing secondary care clinicians initiating this communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11583038/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0341","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care helps to ensure that patients with life-limiting illness receive appropriate coordinated care in line with their preferences. However, little is known about this information-sharing process.

Aim: To determine how poor prognosis is communicated from secondary care to primary care.

Design and setting: This was an international systematic review and narrative synthesis of studies published in English.

Method: Four electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 17 May 2021, supplemented by hand-searching of key journals. One-quarter of titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second reviewer. Two reviewers undertook data extraction and quality appraisal, independently using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Reporting follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance.

Results: Searches identified 23 853 unique studies of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Few studies had a focus on the interprofessional communication of poor prognosis. Information about prognosis was not commonly communicated from secondary to primary care and was more likely to occur if death was imminent. Lack of identification of poor prognosis by secondary care teams was a barrier. Facilitators included shared electronic records and direct clinician-clinician contact. GPs welcomed this information from secondary care and felt it was vital for continuity of care.

Conclusion: Although the communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care is highly valued it is rare and associated with cultural and systemic challenges. Further research is necessary to understand the information needs of GPs and to explore the challenges facing secondary care clinicians initiating this communication.

是什么帮助或阻碍了二级医疗机构和初级医疗机构之间就不良预后进行沟通?系统综述与叙述性综述。
导言:将预后不良的信息从二级医疗机构传递给基层医疗机构,有助于确保患有局限生命疾病的患者能够得到符合其意愿的适当、协调的护理。然而,人们对这一信息共享过程知之甚少。目的 确定如何将预后不良的信息从二级医疗机构传达给初级医疗机构。设计和设置 系统性文献综述和叙述性综合。方法 检索 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 5 月 17 日期间的四个电子数据库,并对主要期刊进行人工检索。四分之一的标题和摘要由第二位审稿人独立筛选。两名审稿人使用混合方法评估工具独立进行数据提取和质量评估。数据采用叙事综合法进行分析。报告遵循 PRISMA 指南。结果 搜索共发现 23853 项研究,其中 30 项符合纳入标准。很少有研究关注预后不良的跨专业沟通。有关预后的信息通常不会从二级医疗机构传达给基层医疗机构,而更有可能在死亡迫在眉睫的情况下传达。二级医疗团队缺乏对预后不良的识别是一个障碍。促进因素包括共享电子记录和临床医生与医生之间的直接联系。全科医生对二级医疗机构提供的这些信息表示欢迎,并认为这对医疗服务的连续性至关重要。结论 尽管二级医疗机构向基层医疗机构通报预后不良的信息受到高度重视,但这种做法并不多见,而且还存在文化和系统方面的挑战。有必要开展进一步的研究,以了解全科医生的信息需求,并探讨二级医疗机构的临床医生在启动这种沟通时所面临的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信